Corporate advisers say companies asking the stock exchange for trading halts to properly assess hoaxes and media speculation is a legitimate tactic and concern by major companies is misguided.

The Australian Financial Review reported on Tuesday that the Australian Bankers’ Association and major companies, including BHP Billiton and Telstra, oppose an ASX proposal to encourage greater use of trading halts, warning that they are perceived negatively by investors and can unfairly wipe out shareholder value.

Whitehaven went into a trading halt at 12.56pm last Monday in response to false reports, before confirming the release was a hoax at 1.04pm the same day.

The ASX’s latest statistics show that trading halts are on the rise, with more than 300 requested in the past three months, compared with less than 200 three years ago. Experts attribute this partly to companies seeking to avoid shareholder class actions.

Related Quotes

Company Profile

Australasian Investor Relations Association chief executive Ian Matheson said a push for more trading halts should not be a concern.

“The use of trading halts can be used to a company’s advantage and alleviate any question marks over disclosure.This applies particularly during market trading hours when the company may not be in control of the information," Mr Matheson said.

“I don’t think it is the market’s view that trading halts are frowned upon. I would suggest that the market thinks that trading halts are being used appropriately and are in the interests of the market," Mr Matheson said.

“The ASX’s view that prima facie if there is any concern, just call a trading halt, is not a solution because once the issue has been considered, the board may make an informed decision there is nothing to disclose, then you have to go back into trading and the market will wonder, gee, why did they go into a trading halt?" Mr Sheehy said.

Craig Allen, chief financial officer at engineering company Ausenco, agreed that trading halts should not be overused.

“If you are a CFO who wakes up in the morning and gets a hoax email and then is continually calling trading halts as a result, that seems to make a mockery of the market," he said.

“It seems to be overstretching the bounds that they have to monitor chat sites, and if they see anything good or bad they are supposed to be calling trading halts."

Major companies and their advisers have also warned that a stock exchange proposal to require boards subject to a hostile bid to immediately disclose a counter-bid would send a chill through the market.

The ASX review, which includes a range of changes including when boards should disclose changes to executive contracts and earnings surprises, also proposes that new bids should be immediately disclosed even if highly conditional and incomplete.

The Australian Institute of Company Directors said such a “hair-trigger" disclosure requirement would hurt investors and the market.

“It will have a chilling effect on engagement with counter-bidders and white knights, which is to the detriment of target companies and their security holders," the group said.

The consequence was that target boards would only “receive very vague and uncertain proposals from counter-bidders and white knights, if any, in order to not fall within the hair-trigger disclosure requirement", the directors’ group added.

In a joint submission with Allens Linklaters, UBS corporate advisory said that disclosure in such a case would “act to the detriment of target shareholders and the market".